Bridging data models and terminologies to support adverse drug event reporting using EHR data

Methods of Information in Medicine

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 24-31

  Declerck, G ^a   Hussain, S ^a   Daniel, C ^a   Yuksel, M ^b   Laleci, G B ^b   Twagirumukiza, M ^c   Jaulent, M C ^a  

^a Laboratoire d'Informatique Médicale et d'Ingénierie des Connaissances pour la e Santé   (France)

^b METU Technopolis   (Turkey)

^c AGFA GEVAERT N V   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Adverse drug event reporting; EHR data models; Pharmacovigilance; Secondary use of HER; Semantic interoperability

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; HUMAN; SYSTEM ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIZED NOMENCLATURE OF MEDICINE;

DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; HUMANS; PHARMACOVIGILANCE; SYSTEMATIZED NOMENCLATURE OF MEDICINE; SYSTEMS INTEGRATION;

EID: 84921306620     PISSN: 00261270     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3414/ME13-02-0025     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Martin RM, Kapoor KV, Wilton LV, Mann RD. Underreporting of suspected adverse drug reactions to newly marketed (“black triangle”) drugs in general practice: observational study. British Medical Journal 1998; 317 (7151): 119–120.
2. Heeley E, Riley J, Layton D, Wilton LV, Shakir SA. Prescription-event monitoring and reporting of adverse drug reactions. Lancet 2001; 358 (9296): 1872–1877.
3. Hazell L, Shakir SA. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: A systematic review. Drug Safety 2006; 29 (5): 385–396.
4. Cullen DJ, Bates DW, Small SD, Cooper JB, Nemeskal AR, Leape LL. The incident reporting system does not detect adverse drug events: A problem for quality improvement. The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement 1995; 21 (10): 541–548.
5. Bates DW, Evans RS, Murff H, Stetson PD, Pizziferri L, Hripcsak G. Detecting adverse events using information technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2003; 10 (2): 115–128.
6. Bates DW, Spell N, Cullen DJ, Burdick E, Laird N, Petersen LA, Leape LL. The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 1997; 277 (4): 307–311.
7. Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley TJ, Breckenridge AM. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. British Medical Journal 2004; 329 (7456): 15–19.
8. Belton KJ, Lewis SC, Payne S, Rawlins MD, Wood SM. Attitudinal survey of adverse drug reaction reporting by medical practitioners in the United Kingdom. British journal of clinical pharmacology 1995; 39 (3): 223–226.
9. Hasford J, Goettler M, Munter KH, Müller- Oerlinghausen B. Physicians’ knowledge and attitudes regarding the spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2002; 55 (9): 945–950.
10. Lopez-Gonzalez E, Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A. Determinants of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions. Drug safety 2009; 32 (1): 19–31.
11. Linder JA, Haas JS, Iyer A, Labuzetta MA, Ibara M, Celeste M, Getty G, Bates DW. Secondary use of electronic health record data: spontaneous triggered adverse drug event reporting. Pharmacoepidemiology Drug Safety 2010; 19 (12): 1211–1215.
12. Rozich JD, Haraden CR, Resar RK. Adverse drug event trigger tool: a practical methodology for measuring medication related harm. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2003; 12 (3): 194–200.
13. Brajovic S, Piazza-Hepp T, Swartz L, Dal Pan G. Quality assessment of spontaneous triggered adverse event reports received by the Food and Drug Administration. Pharmacoepidemiology Drug Safety 2012; 21 (6): 565–570.
14. Eichelberg M, Aden T, Riesmeier J, Dogac A, Laleci GB. A survey and analysis of electronic healthcare record standards. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 2005, 37 (4): 277–315.
15. Dolin RH, Alschuler L, Boyer S, Beebe C, Behlen FM, Biron PV, Shvo AS.. HL7 clinical document architecture, release 2. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2006; 13 (1): 30–39.
16. Goossen WT. Using detailed clinical models to bridge the gap between clinicians and HIT. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2008; 141: 3–10.
17. ICH guideline E2B (R2), Electronic transmission of individual case safety reports – Message specification (ICH ICSR DTD Version 2.1). Final Version 2.3, Document Revision Feb. 1, 2001.
18. SALUS Project, Scalable, Standard based Interoperability Framework for Sustainable Proactive Post Market Safety Studies. http://www.salusproject.eu
19. Laleci GB, Yuksel M, Dogac A. Providing Semantic Interoperability between Clinical Care and Clinical Research Domains. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in BioMedicine 2013; 17 (2): 356–369.
20. Anil Sinaci A, Laleci Erturkmen GB. A Federated Semantic Metadata Registry Framework for Enabling Interoperability across Clinical Research and Care Domains. Journal of biomedical informatics 2013; 46 (5): 784–794.
21. Declerck G, Hussain S, Parès Y, Daniel C, Jaulent MC, Laleci GB. Semantic-sensitive extraction of EHR data to support adverse drug events reporting. In: Proceedings of the Semantic Web Application and Tools for Life Science Workshop, Paris, France, 2012.
22. Parès Y, Declerck G, Hussain S, Ng R, Jaulent MC. Building a time-saving and adaptable tool to report adverse drug events. Studies in health technology and informatics 2013; 192: 903–907.
23. SALUS Deliverable D4.3.1: SALUS Harmonized Ontology for Post Market Safety Studies –R1. April 30, 2013. http://www.salusproject.eu/
24. Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE), Patient Care Coordination (PCC) Supplement – Query for Existing Data (QED). Trial Implementation Supplement, Aug. 2008.
25. Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE), Quality, Research and Public Health (QRPH) Supplement – Drug Safety Content Profile (DSC). Trial Implementation Supplement, Aug. 2010.
26. Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE), IT Infrastructure Technical Framework Supplement – Retrieve Form for Data Capture (RFD). Trial ImplementationSupplement, Aug. 19, 2011.
27. W3C. SKOS: Simple Knowledge Organization System. http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/
28. Declerck G, Bousquet C, Jaulent MC. Automatic generation of MedDRA terms groupings using an ontology. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2012; 180: 73–77.
29. SALUS Deliverable D8.1.1: Pilot Application Scenario and Requirement Specifications of the Pilot Application. May 28, 2012. http:// >www.salusproject.eu/
30. Meystre SM, Savova GK, Kipper-Schuler KC, Hurdle JF. Extracting information from textual documents in the electronic health record: a review of recent research. Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2008; 35: 128–144.
31. Wang X, Hripcsak G, Markatou M, Friedman C. Active computerized pharmacovigilance using natural language processing, statistics, and electronic health records: a feasibility study. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2009; 16 (3): 328–337.
32. Friedman C. Discovering novel adverse drug events using natural language processing and mining of the electronic health record. In: Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5651, 1–5. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2009.